Ever Green League Proposed Changes

[angusosborne]

After gathering opinions on changes in the Ever Green Leagues 300 BC thread I have three proposals. I would like as many League members as possible to contribute to this decision.

1. Allow both armies in each challenge to use allies, or never use allies. Please vote Allies or No Allies. I will make this change based on majority of respondents.

2. Re-draft the leagues from three leagues for specific dates to one league for FoG2, one league for FoG2 armies that do not require DLC, and one for FoG2:Medieval open to all armies. Please vote Yes or No. I will make this change only if a majority of current League members support it.

3. Remove non-responsive members. Please vote Yes or No. I will make this change only if a majority of current League members support it.

This democratic process is copied from long running NFL fantasy football leagues I've participated in and run, and I hope it's transferable. Please feel free to make an argument for what you think in the thread below, or to change your vote. I will put my arguments for the proposals in a separate post.

I don't have a specific deadline in mind to close off voting.

[angusosborne]

1. No allies

2. Yes

3. Yes

I don't have a strong opinion on allies, but I think both attacker and defender should be treated the same. I agree with deeter's thoughts that allies aren't well implemented.

I think increasing the date range would increase the variety of armies. I would also like a DLC-free league as a gateway tournament for new players. I don't know if there'll be enough support or demand for it, but I think it would be a good way to welcome people to the community.

I have struck a couple of players who haven't responded to challenges or PMs. I think they should be taken off the ladder. They could always rejoin.

[Karvon]

1. Allies, I think allowing allies makes more lists usable, especially if playing in wider time frames. However, there are lots of lists to choose from, so not a make or break option for me.

2. Yes? While I like the idea of a non DLC option, I honestly don't know how many players that'll draw in these forums. Also, if players buy more DLCs they probably will move to the other ladder. I suppose some who have all the DLCs might possibly decide to play in such a competition for something different.

3. No. I think a big part of the appeal is that folks can play when they like without pressure to participate. Those who don't play as much will slowly fall down the ladder.

You might want to PM players currently playing to draw their attention to this discussion.

Karvon

[Stew101]

Hi all,

here's my votes and comments.

1. Allies - Yes.
The current format can sometimes throw up a mismatch.
Recently had to face Macedonians with allies using Etruscans. Avoided defeat just, but had little chance to win without the Samnite allies.

2. Yes. Agree with Karvon's comments.

3. No. Again I agree with Karvon. We all have real life pressures that impact us from time to time. I've personally cut back on the tournaments I'm playing currently, but I've kept EGL going. Someone else might have chosen another way around.

Here's a new thought for you though.
I'd amend the rule about only being able to challenge within three places, in fact I'd do away with it altogether.
I'd have liked to play some of the new names in the league - not that games against Karvon and EricD are dull, far from it, but we know each other well.
I'd suggest a simple change that you can only challenge the same opponent every other game.

Regards Stew.

[deeter]

My opinion (FWIW):

1. No allies for reasons mentioned above. Otherwise, allies should be declared in a challenge. (I still don't like them though.)

2. If the host has the DLC, the other player doesn't need to own it, so either way.

3. I am often inactive, but still wish to participate when the spirit moves me. I seldom decline a challenge however.

Deeter

[Hari72]

1. No allies

2. Yes

3. Yes

I agree with angusosborne

[SawyerK]

1. I vote for allies for both sides as I think it makes the game more interesting. I am willing to play without them, however.
2. Having a non-DLC option is reasonable but I don't know how you would make new players aware that was available.
3. Recasting the leagues is fine with me.

[ericdoman1]

1. Allies for both armies but you must only use the one specified in the beginning.
2.Just go with 700BC to 350 AD, 351 to 1100 and 1100 +
3. Yes - I would remove myself BUT then again I am very rarely challenged.
3a. All players must issue challenges equally. A simple record can be kept showing who has and who has not issued challenges

[Holien]

1. Allies

2. I would back Eric's simple period break down.

3. Yes but only if they fail to respond as to why they have turned down a challenge. Come the winter months I will be playing more actively I think...

[Jagger2002]

1. Yes. Allies add some interesting possibilities.

2. No. Prefer historical matches as much as possible.

3. Yes. They can always rejoin.

[Doyley50]

1. No
2.No, I too prefer historical matches.
3. Yes, but give a warning first.

[ericdoman1]

1. Allies for both armies but you must only use the one specified in the beginning.
2. 200BC, 1000AD and 1300AD
3. Yes - I would remove myself BUT then again I am very rarely challenged.
3a. All players must issue challenges equally. A simple record can be kept showing who has and who has not issued challenges

A change to 2. The majority of armies may have only had a few "historical enemies". The dates I gave are again based on the original concept but just different dates, some different armies and possible historical opponents. You could make it a themed event based on "The Campaigns of...". Stew had a few ideas before but that limits the army options

[angusosborne]

Thanks all for your input so far, some interesting ideas. I PMed everyone in the leagues so hopefully some more answers will come in.

[gort7078]

#1 NO Allies

#2 YES but I'll go with whatever periods you decide!

#3 YES, if you have a good reason ok, but let it be known!

[angusosborne]

There has not been enough voting to pass proposals 2 or 3, so the league dates will remain the same, and players will remain on the ladder even if they are inactive.

As for allies: it's 5-5, with an eleventh vote by Eric for "Allies for both armies but you must only use the one specified in the beginning". So I will re-propose it, and a majority vote will make the decision:

Should Ever Green League armies be allowed include an ally chosen by the army's current player? YES or NO

[ericdoman1]

Yes

[Karvon]

Yes

[SawyerK]

Yes

[Holien]

Should Ever Green League armies be allowed include an ally chosen by the army's current player? YES or NO

I really do not understand the impact of saying yes or no to this and why it should be either?

Can someone express why it's a good thing to allow? There was an obvious choice made when setting up the league to have it the way it is so why?

[ericdoman1]

The game itself allows us to choose allies.

It is then up to us to decide if we wish to use them in other tournaments.

I believe having the use of allies is a good thing due to allowing more options in building an army. Some of the EGL games I have played in has made the game nigh impossible to win without allies, that is for me and my opponent. Choosing allies is not compulsory so a player can still decide to not use them.

My answer was yes, based on the above.

AngusO - I think it would be a good idea to pm all players, as there is very little response at the mo. If you have their emails, that would be probably better.